zlacker

If their intent is to convince Google, then I agree. If the intent is to convince the public and policy makers, I don't think they need to re-frame it. I am okay letting a company (even a complete industry) fail if society has decided that the industry or business practices are parasitic.

Privacy is a freedom which has many parasites (state and private entity driven) attacking it and I welcome changes to perception, regulation, and law which places safeguards around it.

>>fitbli+(OP)
And do you consider a complete ban of 100B+ advertising industry and complete ban of tracking (happily used by governments) a likely outcome?

Even the mighty Apple still tracks analytics data and separates that into a separate switch from the ones limiting non-Apple tracking.

>>izacus+x1
Not how opinions and politics stand now, but that is part of the reason why articles like this are important. There is quite a distance to travel between writing an article criticizing tracking + the technology that enables it and arriving at legislation.

>>fitbli+39
I might be traitor to the cause, but I feel like giving the industry an "out" might be easier to achieve and significantly faster to implement - e.g. instead of complete ban on targeted advertising, standardize on a clientside API that can send a list of topics/themes that are interesting to the person. In a way that's not owned by a single corporation.

This way I feel there will be less legislative and lobbying pushback while still achieving major privacy wins.

>>izacus+x1
This is not about banning ads or analytics.